Ezra Clyde scoffed at that idea when I raised it to him. "The technicians didn't implement the exchanges correctly. The mandate and the adequate partner requirements were carefully crafted, we just couldn't get the ball the last five yards into the end zone when it came time to build DateEx."
David Axenbar vociferously argued, "When the Adequate Partner Requirements were causing so many disastrous news stories, it doesn't matter what else was going right in the Act."
While the supporters argue about what could have made the difference, it seems clear from the outside that each of the three pillars of the Partnership Act—the Adequate Partner Requirements, the partner mandate, and DateEx.gov—failed to achieve their objectives. The ultimate repeal of the Partnership Act in 2020, just in time to take the issue away from a hungry opposition that might otherwise have defeated the President's reelection bid.
The President has set an ambitious agenda for her second term, one that many of the people I spoke with support. However, a clear theme emerged when I asked my interviewees what advice they'd give for future projects like the Partnership Act: "Don't take away what people have and replace it with what you think they want."
I asked Professor Patter about that notion as I was on my way out of his house. He gave me a tired smile. "People say they don't want change because they're irrational and risk-averse. You want to know why the Partnership Act failed? It wasn't the APRs, the mandate, or the exchange. It was the people."
THE END